Allowed

Aruna Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Jun 2021WP(C)/17529/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought regularization of his employment after more than 11 years of continuous monthly remuneration service. The High Court granted relief, directing the opposite parties to regularize his services and grant consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite parties to regularize petitioner's services and grant consequential service benefits.

Aruna Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 17529 of 2021

¶2

02 10.06.2021 The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical mode).

¶3

Heard Mr. A.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize his services against the sanctioned post taking into account his continuous service of more than 11 years, as has been done in favour of the other similarly situated persons as per Government Circular and in terms of the principle decided in Secretary State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on monthly remuneration basis. He has already rendered more than 11 years of service under the opposite parties and therefore, seeks for regularization of services in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006.

¶6

Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner has rendered service

¶7

¶8

for more than 11 years on monthly remuneration basis. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio decided in the cases cited supra. In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of this Writ Petition directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner and regularize his services keeping in view the judgment in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others involving SLP(C) No.15774/2006 and also the resolution of the G.A. Department dated 17.09.2013, within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of this order by the petitioner and grant consequential service benefits as due admissible to him.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶10

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25^th March, 2020, as modified by Court’s notice no. 4798 dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶11

(DR. B.R. SARANGI, J)

¶12

.…………….……………….

¶13

Ajaya

¶14

Aruna Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruna Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupapriya Shankhua Vs State of Odisha

Tanmaya Chand Vs State of Odisha

Rengali Dam Project Industrial Training Institute (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Regional P.F. Commissioner

Suniki@ Sunuki Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Gopabandhu Behera Vs State of Odisha

Chhabila Naik Vs Guha Poonam Tapas Kumar, IAS